Dismissed¶46

Minati Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Apr 2025WP(C)/6755/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: draft ROR; Patita Godia; Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 — Sections 12, 12A, 15B; alternative remedy / exhaustion of statutory remedy; Narottam Rath v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC Online Odisha 453 (set aside by Supreme Court); State of Odisha v. Deepak Kumar Samantaray (SC, 17.12.2024, remand); mutation case No. 4655 of 1994; ROR No. 224/1023; Plot No. 328/3378; lease case No. 5357/2009; Jamabandi No. 224/1023; Plot No. 798 / ROR No. 3598; ASO Jobra; Settlement Officer Jobra; Sub-Collector and Tahasildar Bhubaneswar; writ dismissed for non-exhaustion of remedies.

What did the court decide?

As the decision in Narottam Rath has been set aside by the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot place reliance on it. ¶41

Minati Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the draft ROR entry recording Plot No. 798 under ROR No. 3598 in the name of the Government (kisam changed to 'Patita Godia') ought to be quashed/set aside, and the ASO, Jobra directed to accept the correction application and record the plot in the petitioner's name in a separate khata. +1 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

As the decision in Narottam Rath has been set aside by the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot place reliance on it.

¶41

Key takeaways

Alternative remedies under Section 12A and/or Section 15B of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act not having been exhausted, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ application and dismissed it.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 6755 of 2025, decided 08.04.2025, Savitri Ratho, J.) by Minati Mohanty seeking quashing of a draft ROR issued by the ASO, Jobra in 2024 recording Plot No. 798 (ROR No. 3598) in the name of the Government with kisam changed to 'Patita Godia', and a direction to record the plot in her name in a separate khata. Petitioner's chain of title: vendor Basanti Mishra purchased Ac. 0650 dec in 1983, mutated it and obtained lease; petitioner purchased Ac. 0.050 dec on 30.11.1992; mutation case No. 4655 of 1994 allowed in 1995 issuing ROR No. 224/1023 with Plot No. 328/3378; lease case No. 5357/2009 allowed; Jamabandi No. 224/1023 opened in 2023; rent collected up to 2024-25 on 11.05.2024. Counsel relied on Narottam Rath v. State of Odisha (2023 SCC Online Odisha 453), but the Court noted the Supreme Court (order dated 17.12.2024, State of Odisha v. Deepak Kumar Samantaray) had set that batch judgment aside for deciding matters on presumed common facts without considering Section 12/12A/15B questions, remanding each case for fresh consideration. Held: Narottam Rath could not be relied upon; alternative remedies under Sections 12A/15B of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 had not been exhausted; writ application dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 6755 of 2025

¶3

Minati Mohanty ….. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. S. P. Sahoo, Advocate

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1. State of Odisha 2. Settlement Officer, Jobra 3. Assistant Settlement Officer, Jobra

¶7

4. Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar 5.Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar

¶8

Opp. Parties Mr. A. Mohanty, A.S.C.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER

¶11

08.04.2025

¶12

(Through hybrid mode)

¶13

Order No.

¶14

This writ application has been filed with the following

¶15

¶16

prayer;

¶17

“1. To quash/set aside the Plot No.798 under ROR No.3598 recorded in the name of Government.

¶18

2. To direct the ASO, Jobra to accept the application for correction and record above Plot in the name of the petitioner in separate Khata.

¶19

3. To pass order directing any other reliefs as available under law.

¶20

For the act of which the petitioner shall ever pray.”

¶21

Referring to his date chart Mr. S. P. Sahoo, learned counsel

¶22

for the petitioner has submitted that Basanti Mishra had

¶23

purchased Ac. 0650 dec of land in the year 1983 and mutated the

¶24

Page1 of 5

¶25

same in her name. She had applied for lease and lease was granted in her favour. On 30.11.1992, the present petitioner purchased Ac. 0.050 dec from Basanti Mishra and in the year 1994 she applied for mutation of the purchased land. In the year 1995, mutation case No. 4655 of 1994 was allowed in favour of the petitioner and ROR No. 224/1023 with Plot No. 328/3378 was issued. In the year 2009, the petitioner applied for lease, as her vendor was holding lease patta and lease case No. 5357/2009 was allowed and incorporated in the register. In the year 2023 Jamabandi was opened having Jamabandi No. 224/1023. On 11.05.2024 rent was collected till 2024-25. In the year 2024 all of a sudden the ASO, Jobra issued draft ROR, recording the land in question in Government ROR changing the kisam to ‘Patita Godia’. He further submits that the case of the petitioner covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Narottam Rath vs. State of Odisha & others & batch reported in 2023 SCC Online Odisha 453 . Referring to the decision dated 17.12.2024 of the Supreme Court in case of State of Odisha & ors. Vs. Deepak Kumar Samantaray, he submits that the order in Narottam Rath (supra) still stands good as the Court has held

¶26

Page2 of 5

¶27

that if lease was granted no record of right was required to be prepared in terms of Section 12 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.

¶28

Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel at the very outset has submitted that the decision of this Court in case of Narottam Rath (supra) has been set aside by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Samantaray (supra) and hence the decision in Narottam Rath (supra) cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. He further submits that if draft ROR has been published recording the land in question in the name of the Government (GA Department) changing the kisam to Patita Godia, alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act.

¶29

The relevant portion of order dated 17.12.2024 of the Supreme Court is extracted below;

¶30

“Delay condoned.

¶31

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the judgment needs to be quashed and set aside for the simple reason that instead of deciding each case individually, on its given fact, the High Court proceeded to club and decide all the matters by presuming the facts to be common/identical and framing a common question of law.

¶32

As such on this short ground alone, the judgment requires

¶33

Page3 of 5

¶34

interference, we are of the considered view that each case had to be considered on its own merits.

¶35

Whether the power exercised by the ASO under the provisions of Section 12 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 were exercised prior to the finalisation of the Record of Rights or at a subsequent stage was not considered by the High Court. Also as to whether the aggrieved parties had exhausted their remedies as provided under Section 12A and/or Section 15B of the said Act was also not considered by the High Court. The High Court proceeded on the assumption that all the petitioners before the Court had leases in their favour, in relation to which no Record of Rights was required to be prepared in terms of Section 12 of the said Act.

¶36

As such, on these grounds alone, without commenting on the merits of the issue and the contentions raised before us, we remand the matter to the High Court for consideration afresh.

¶37

We hope and expect that each case would be considered and decided separately, though expeditiously. All rights and contentions inter se the parties are left open to be agitated before the High Court.

¶38

The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 15.1.2025. The parties undertake to fully co-operate in the proceedings before the High Court.

¶39

The special leave petitions are disposed of as above. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.”

¶40

5. As the decision in Narottam Rath (Supra) has been set

¶41

aside by the Supreme Court, petitioner cannot place reliance on it.

¶42

In view of the observation of the Supreme Court in the case

¶43

of State of Odisha & ors. vs. Deepak Kumar Samantaray

¶44

(supra) that it has to be considered whether the aggrieved

¶45

Page4 of 5

¶46

parties had exhausted their remedies under Section-12A and/or Section-15B of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, on consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that alternative remedies have not been exhausted. So, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶47

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶48

Subhalaxmi

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 10-Apr-2025 19:34:01

¶51

Page5 of 5

Minati Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minati Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jhansirani Parida Vs State of Odisha

Bijaya Kumar Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Odisha Rastrabhasa Parishad,Puri Vs Inspector General of Registration Board of Revenue, Cuttack

Jami Venkata Suryaprabha Vs Tarini Prasad Nayak

Niranjan Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Bimala Devi Passary Vs Surendra Agarwal